Calming the Waters

In a final effort to settle the Western water wars, the Clinton administration plans to announce this week a tentative truce between California and six other states over how to divvy up water from this enormous reservoir behind Hoover Dam on the Colorado River.

But the guys who run the Lake Mead Marina are skeptical. California’s reputation as the water hog of the West is firmly rooted in this part of the country.

“California seems to have a surreal attitude about water,” said Taz Hansen, 50, the marina’s maintenance supervisor. “They think everybody else’s water really belongs to California.”

“If this lake goes down too far, a lot of people are out of work,” said Ross Hollinger, 45, the dock master. “California seems not to care about other people, as long as it gets enough water for itself.”

Hansen, Hollinger and others here are only repeating what politicians, water lawyers and editorial writers in Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming have long said about the Golden State.

For years California has been drawing far more than its entitlement of the Colorado River by invoking a provision in federal water law that assures California half of all “surplus” water in the river.

What galls the other states is that California already enjoys the largest entitlement of any state to Colorado River water.

Last year California took about 800,000 acre-feet of water more than its entitlement, enough for 6 million people.

In recent years there has been surplus water, because rain and snowfall have been plentiful and other states have not needed their full entitlements.

Now those states say they need all their water, either for immediate use to satisfy growing populations or for storage. States are also worried that the wet years may be ending.

Concerned that giving up surplus Colorado River water cold turkey could devastate its economy and lifestyle, California has appealed for a 15-year grace period, during which it could continue to receive more than its entitlement while various conservation and water-transfer plans are put into place.

U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is inclined to grant California’s request as a reward for significant steps the state has already taken to use water more efficiently and kick the surplus-water habit.

“This basically gives California a soft landing” as it implements changes, said Dennis Underwood, Colorado River specialist for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

To win over the six other states, the MWD agreed to reduce its take in years of drought to aid Arizona and also to help Nevada in its fight to clean up pollution in Lake Mead that affects that state’s supply.

There will also be “triggers” in the truce whereby California will lose surplus water if it reneges on its conservation plans--measures such as the historic water sales between Imperial Valley, which enjoys the lion’s share of California’s Colorado River entitlement, and water-poor San Diego County.

Babbitt waggishly calls this his “trust but verify” strategy, a term usually associated with nuclear disarmament talks.

Prompted by Babbitt, Southern California has reduced daily use per person from 210 gallons to 183 gallons in 10 years.

There is a certain historical irony in Babbitt’s taking the lead in convincing the six Western states to think more kindly of California.

As attorney general and then governor in Arizona in the 1970s and 1980s, Babbitt engaged in nearly continuous litigation with California over the Colorado River. His tough comments from that era are still sometimes quoted by those opposed to his drive for more interstate cooperation.

Among other tactics he has used to bring the states together, Babbitt has sought to convince California’s neighbors that litigating and politicking are a losing game.

“Occasionally, the six other states look over their shoulders and realize California is heading toward 50 million people and already has [twice] as many congressional representatives as the other states combined,” Babbitt said. “The alternative to politics is litigation, and that’s even worse.”

To say that the other states are skeptical about whether California can be trusted to wean itself from using other people’s water is roughly akin to saying that Hoover Dam--726 feet tall, 1,244 feet wide, 660 feet thick at the base--is one big hunk of concrete.

“California is seen as avaricious,” said Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. “Everybody knows they overuse the system.”

Babbitt will formally unveil his plan Thursday at his annual speech in Las Vegas to the Colorado River Water Users Assn., a gathering of 1,000 water wonks from the seven states that depend on the Colorado River.

The proposal will be published in the Federal Register for the legally required 30 days of review and comment. Babbitt hopes to issue a final ruling Jan. 17, just three days before President Clinton leaves office.

Although water officials from all seven states have tentatively agreed to the Babbitt plan--indeed, they were instrumental in drawing it up--that does not mean the proposal is a slam dunk.

Lawsuit-minded environmentalists have already said they believe that the plan would not provide enough water for the Lower Colorado River Delta, where the 1,500-mile river trickles into the Gulf of California.

The Mexican government may also have concerns over whether the proposal could mean less water for Mexico.

Anti-California hard-liners in some states, particularly Colorado, believe that California should be made to pay for the surplus water.

Others think the federal government should help Western states build dams and reservoirs to store the water rather than let it move downstream and be slurped up by California.

One major unknown is how significantly the surplus plan will reduce the level of 164,000-acre Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir. The Lake Mead Marina operators fear that their docks could be left high and dry.

There are also concerns that if the level of Lake Mead is lowered, it could become more difficult for Hoover Dam’s giant turbines to produce electricity and for Nevada to draw out its share of water upstream of the dam.

One computer scenario even suggests that the water level in the Grand Canyon could be reduced as a result.

Babbitt says he doubts that the water level will drop dramatically. But there are no assurances of that, any more than there are assurances about how much rainfall and snowpack will replenish the lake.

Other states appear to be willing to take a certain level of risk in exchange for a promise from California to change its water-wasting ways.

“This is really a California plan. There’s not much in it for the other states,” said Larry Dozier, deputy general manager of the Central Arizona Project. “But what we get is a California that finally promises that it will live within a water budget.”

Said Nevada’s Mulroy: “The next 15 years are going to be a credibility test for California. We’ll see whether California still views itself as an independent agent or has shifted to becoming part of a greater Colorado River community.”